66 comments:

Thanks Dr. Hunter, a truly amazing miracle to wake up to that, despite the blind faith of evolutionists, evolution did not even have a hand in the origination of a single protein of that amazing miracle.

Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html

Here is the closest evolutionists have come to mimicking the evolution of a single protein:

A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial CellsExcerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division."http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385

How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html

Selectual selection tends to keep the norm- tat is what all observations say. And observations are the stuff of science.

Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

Well...ummmmm...there MUST be an evolutionary reason for why those birds do what they do because...

There is. It's called sexual selection. Sometimes passing on your genes doesn't go to the biggest or strongest male. Sometimes it goes to the most showy, the one that can best woo a mate into selecting him to breed with. The phenomenon is particularly prevalent among bird species.

There's tons of scientific info readily available on the topic, which is probably why you've never heard of it.

thorton: Sometimes passing on your genes doesn't go to the biggest or strongest male. Sometimes it goes to the most showy, the one that can best woo a mate into selecting him to breed with. The phenomenon is particularly prevalent among bird species.

Which proves my point about natural selection- you just don't know who the fittest are going to be and it is all after-the-fact.

Sexual selection is just another way of saying: "What reproduced, reproduced because they found a quality attractive in another mate." Well duh!

It offers no explanation as to how such a trait(s) came about in the first place, especially if multiple proteins are required for it. In other words, natural selection would not be a factor in helping retain those proteins until a beneficial effect was eventually produced....such as that little dance the bird was doing, etc. But it's all a moot point anyway, because darwin's myth is fact and God help anyone who dares not worship the great darwin and his preposterous fairytale.

The strong will propagate, the weak will perish. For example, the stronger lions will have their pick of females while the weaker ones will have to settle for the rest.

Anything that gives some organisms a leg up (so to speak) over their competition will have a better chance of reproducing. Those with traits attractive to the opposite gender will have a better chance of mating and producing offspring etc etc etc. Like I said, duh!

Now care to answer the questions I posed in my earlier post?

How such traits came about in the first place, especially if multiple proteins are required for them.

You can't just claim materialistic evolution is true and then attribute everything to it and call it 'evidence' for materialistic evolution. That's circular reasoning, and it's the cornerstone of the darwinian myth.

The paper is about sexual dichromatic species and how that can lead to diversification. The two sexes are so different that a female can choose a mate that does not look like her father. Pretty much like a female being able to mate with a bird from a different species.

The paper does not explain how sexual dichromatic species arose. Just what they are capable of and why.

But that the female can choose to mate with an apparently different species should tell us that our classification system may not be correct and what we think are different species could very well be just different races/ varieties of the same species.

The paper is about sexual dichromatic species and how that can lead to diversification. The two sexes are so different that a female can choose a mate that does not look like her father. Pretty much like a female being able to mate with a bird from a different species."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"a female can choose a mate that does not look like her father."

So that's what you think sexual selection is??? That's a keeper Joe. It's going in the "Joe G's Most Incredibly Stupid Things Said" hall of shame.

I see you're still too stupid to understand what a clade is, or that the paper was describing the correlation between sexual selection and the diversification of the passerine clade. Sexual selection increases the speciation rate of the group.

Yeah "explained" by a bunch of "if"s- why did the female choose whatevber trait she did? "Just because" isn't scientific. And the paper does NOT address the ORIGIN of the traits that females can choose from.

What stops a polygamous female from choosing mates with different traits? Nothing.

As I said it is all post hoc/ ad hoc guessing based on a specific untestable framework.

As I said it is all post hoc/ ad hoc guessing based on a specific untestable framework.

You say a lot of really stupid things that have no connection to reality, like "the Great Pyramid is an antenna" and "sexual selection means the female bird picks a mate who doesn't look like her father".

thorton:Tell us Joe, since virtually all birds of paradise species are polygamous and only the females build nests and take care of the young, how do the female birds know what type their father was?

It doesn't matter, moron. The point is, seeing that you are too stupid to grasp it, that the female does not look for a specific looking male to mate with. The female doesn't have to mate with a male with the same traits as its father. Whereas in a monochromatic population she would, even if she didn't know who her father was.

Joe G. above: Sexual selection means that one of the sexes actually chooses. In this paper it was the female

Joe G. an hour later: the female does not look for a specific looking male to mate with.

So according to Joe the Bird Expert, sexual selection means the female selects her mate based on his physical/behavioral characteristics. But she also doesn't look at his physical/behavioral characteristics when choosing a mate!

It takes a special kind of stupid to directly contradict yourself in the span of two posts - Joe G's our "special" Creationist!

Nope, not even close. Apparently sexual selection means whatever the female chooses. And being polygamous each mating time they could choose a different partner for whatever reason. Mr Right (whatever that is) vs Mr Right Now vs "I couldn't find any other single males so you will do"

Unless you follow one female for all of her sexcapades you can't put together any pattern.

Unless you follow one female for all of her sexcapades you can't put together any pattern.

TRIPLE BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Sorry Joe but the scientists can and did establish a correlating pattern by measuring color differential across the whole population. That you're so ignorant as to think they had to follow each individual female bird across her whole lifespan just highlights how scientifically inept you really are.

Just like with antennas and just like with genetic algorithms, with evolutionary processes like sexual selection you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. You try to BS your way through but only stick your foot in your mouth deeper with every word you type. You're a shining example of everything the ID movement is all about.

We know remarkably little about the origins of sexual selection. Why, for example, do female widowbirds prefer long-tailed males? Possibly females choose such males because the ability to grow and display long tails reflects their overall genetic "quality" as mates -- and the females are thus choosing a superior father for their offspring. Or the choice may have no present adaptive basis, but merely be the result of an evolutionary sequence that started for another reason. For instance, perhaps the ancestors of Long-tailed Widowbirds once lived together with a population of near relatives whose males had slightly shorter tails. The somewhat longer tails of males of the "pre-Long-tailed" Widowbirds were the easiest way for females to recognize mates of their own species. Such a cue could have led to a preference for long tails that became integrated into the behavioral responses of females. Although we are inclined to think the former scenario is correct, the data in hand do not eliminate the second possibility.

And if you don't follow the female around then you have no idea why she selected the mates she did and you have no idea what mates she selected.

And if you don't follow the female around then you have no idea why she selected the mates she did and you have no idea what mates she selected.

IOW you don't have any science, you are just guessing

Tell you what Joe. Why don't you write the authors of the study and Proceedings of the Royal Society / Biological Sciences who published it, tell them that they don't have any science, they are just guessing.

Umm it has nothing to do with what I say. Everyone can see that is exactly what happened.

And it doesn't matter what the authors say. it is obvious that the paper has nothing to do with unguided evolution. Nor does it have anything to do with the OP as it does NOT address the "why and how" of sexual selection.

As far as the authors know, sexual selection has kept the existing diversity, as opposed to causing it.

And I see that thorton is still upset because there is more evidence that pyramids are antennas than there is for his position.

Here come the Joe G stupid train again! The whistle goes WOO! WOO!

Try to ridicule me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are an intellectual coward who couldn't support its position if your life depended on it.

(Looks around at the thousands of top tier colleges and universities that offer degrees in the evolutionary sciences at the undergrad and grad level. Looks at the millions of professional scientists and researchers in biology, genetics, paleontology, medicine, etc. who successfully use the evolutionary paradigm in their work every day. Looks at the hundreds of professional science journals publishing hundreds of studies with more evidence on the details of evolution every week.)

(Then looks at the handful of cranks at UD and the DI with zero research, zero results, zero evidence, and who so resemble the drunk nutter on the corner screaming at the street lamp)

So what is the evidence supporting materialism and evolutionism? Your bluff means nothing.

What is the evidence that accumulations of genetic accidents can produce any bacterial flagellum? What would the testable hypothesis for such a thing be?

Not one person from any of your top tier colleges and universities can answer that. Not one of those scientists can answer that.

There aren't any details of evolution. No one knows how many mutations it takes to get an upright biped from a knuckle-walker/ quadraped. No one knows if changes to the genome can account for all the transformations required to do such a thing.

So what, exactly, do you think you have? Do you have anything other than your cowardly equivocating and bluffing? Anything at all?